ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.578-581/Rjt/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.67/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05) बनाम/ Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, Cit(Appeals)-Xvi, Station Road, Lakhtar, Dist. Ahmedabad. Vs. Surrendranagar, Gujarat-382775 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 16/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A) In Short] Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2000-01 To 2004-05. Ita No.578-581/Rjt/2008 A.Y.S 2000-01 To 2004-05 First We Take Assessee’S Appeal Bearing Ita No. 578/Rjt/2008. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

234B and 244A and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in re-opening the concluded assessment of A.Ys 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Note: 1. This ground is already

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

3. Levy of Interest and Cess: The interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, along with the education cess, is based on the incorrect application of MMR. These should be recalculated based on the correct tax rate applicable to an AOP under the mutuality principle. 4. Relief Sought: In view of the above facts, legal principles, and judicial precedents

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

3) r.w.s. 153A. When these assessments have been framed and the appeals have been decided by the ld.CIT(A), the law with regard to jurisdiction of the AO for passing the assessment order in search case under section 153A has not been developed, as it is available today. It has been developed subsequent to passing of such order, and therefore

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

ROGI KALYAN SAMITI CHITAL,CHITAL AMRELI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-2 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.3,99,140/-. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA.328/RJT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital 4. That, the finding of the Ld. CIT and Ld. AO are not justified in law as well as facts of the case

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

234B, 234C and 234D of the I. T. Act, 1961. (9). That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal, which is as follows: “The notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2018, is in violation of CBDT instruction F.No

SMT. KRISHNA JITENDRASINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 104/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Krishna Jitendrasinh Jadeja vs. ITO 1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 19, 96,751 /- being 5% of the total transportation

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow opening cash balance of Rs.6,10,835/- Page No. 59 Para 4 in assessment order passed by income tax officer Ward-4, Surendranagar wrongly not accept my opening cash dated 01/04/2016. Rs.6,10,835/-. As I have business of fertilizer in A.Y. 2016-17. Also and opening cash is carry forward 6,10,835/- although the income tax officer

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Disallowance of expenses has been made without following the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A and 234B